Naiyas
About
- Username
- Naiyas
- Joined
- Visits
- 52
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 494
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 107
Reactions
-
Apple unveils new 13-inch MacBook Pro with Apple Silicon M1 for $1299
I was looking forward to the Apple Silicone release to see what benefits it would bring and in some ways it delivered, in others it has hobbled. For me, I see the pros and cons as follows across all of the new models:- Pro - Massively extended battery life which is an important factor to me (MacBooks only)
- Pro - Mixed core chip to split workloads better between UI and OS operations versus Application performance
- Pro - Onboard ML speed boost
- Pro - Upgraded I/O in USB 4
- Con - Supports only one external display (I use 2 external 4K displays, plus the laptop screen when at a desk)
- Con - 720p Facetime camera (MacBooks only)
- Con - Limited to 16GB of RAM
- Con - No eGPU support (plays into the external monitor limitation)
-
Apple debuts new MacBook Air with Apple Silicon M1 chip
All TCO results from all companies that have a mixed deployment show that for equivalent spec'd Macs and PCs, Mac's come out better value. They last longer (that's a bigger denominator in the equation) and have less support costs (that's a lower addition to the numerator). So whilst they may cost more upfront, they cost far less per year of ownership compared to the equivalent PC.elijahg said:
You're the one with no real world experience, if Macs are such great value why is it a Mac with almost identical specs to a Windows machine is so much more expensive? A Dell XPS is cheaper than a Mac, has the same specs and is cheaper. And surely if "running a business" is a way to know value proposition, every business would be full of Macs, but they aren't. Why do you think that is?StrangeDays said:
Lol yeah these dudes crack me up, they’re used to lemonade stand economics and that’s about it. No real world experience in product, don’t grasp value propositions, likely have never run a business, etc etc.. Just IT nerds doin what they do best — bitchin’.docno42 said:
You aren’t buying a collection of parts, your buying functionality.elijahg said:I notice the price is the same as before, so rather than dropping the price due to cheaper CPU and increasing accessibility for people, they're just absorbing the extra profit. Great, that's the Cook Way. ߙ䦬t;/div>If you don’t think the value proposition works for you, don’t buy it. Frankly I’m surprised they didn’t raise the price - this little thing called inflation means they are already grossing less just from that alone.If you want cheap crap there are plenty of other vendors to choose from out there. Have at it. I have no problem paying for a better experience. I originally typed out paying more for a better experience, but comparing previous Air to this one you aren’t paying more for a machine that appears to be better in every way.
Yup - damn those greedy Apple bustards!
-
Here's how much money you can save with an Apple One services bundle
I felt a bit of your pain a few years ago. I used to have a similar issue with split accounts with different subscriptions on them but I self migrated all of them (and the family sharing) under the iTunes led account. However, I still have two iCloud/Mac/Me accounts that are split at the country level... one is for the US where most of my content is held and is treated as my primary, the other is in the UK.briananon said:I wonder what this means for those of us who used to pay for MobileMe and still have no way to easily merge iCloud accounts. My dilemma is that my family of 6 is tied to my iCloud account via my old me.com address, and we use that for 2TB of iCloud sharing, calendar sharing, etc, but all of my Apple iTunes content and music is tied to my other email address, which I had long before MobileMe. I haven't looked that closely, but I'm guessing my only way to get to Premier will be to merge everything under one account. I'd pay the extra $5 to get the extra services, but a family sharing migration to my other iCloud account sounds like a risky/horrible proposition.
Why two countries you may ask? Some US or UK apps I need (mostly banking, but there are others) aren't available in the UK or US App stores respectively. So, in order for me to ensure I have full app based access to these on my iPhone I have to retain multiple AppleID's locked to each country. In addition, migrating or merging these from one country to another would result in a significant loss of content. A niche issue I'm sure, but globalisation in my eyes just doesn't exist in reality and the digital world is where it really should!
-
Apple shuts down Epic Games developer account
As a developer myself, admittedly not for games, I’m very familiar with the problems the App Store has for developers, and the thousands of dollars it takes to build an app that will attract buyers. But to promote that this “battle” between Epic and Apple will help us is disingenuous.CheeseFreeze said:
And you don’t think Apple is greedy? Charging 500% of the retail price for storage in your new iMac, or soldering the SSD in your motherboard because then you’ll buy a new iMac sooner when it dies? And still 30% in 2020 on app purchases, while the vast majority of developers are drowning and disappearing in the offerings of millions of apps?quench said:So Epic agreed to the contract because they know Apple has an enormous base of customers. Then epic got greedy and thought they could be dishonorable and cheat the company (Apple) that helped them become a worldwide sensation.
epic you suck for your dishonesty, lying to customers when you blamed Apple for the situation that you forced onto itself, stealing from the company that made you extremely wealthy.I don’t care what quality games you produce, I will not support a greedy, lying, stealing company ever again.
I'm done with you epic!This is not 2009 when your app actually was discoverable on the App Store. 30% for essentially hosting your game and not getting any service out of Apple for anything else (except MAYBE getting your game on their release stream - discoverable for what, like, 3 days maybe?), and then having to PAY for advertisements on the App Store on top the 30%... That is killing developers.Do you know how much devs are SPENDING and risking before that game launches? Do you have any idea about the economics of it all? I guess you don’t.Well, I do, I have released over 40 games on the App Store - both licensed IP’s and games for marketing purposes, some successful and some not, and I can tell you the App Store today is a shit show because of the sheer amount of content.Top tier earners keep earning because they BUY their users with their earnings. Hundreds thousands per day. You have no chance of turning the tides in your favor. It’s a mess.Epic is one of the exceptions - they are incredibly successful - but they are fighting the PRINCIPLE here and that’s not just for themselves. They don’t need Apple’s iOS revenue. They want CHANGE. Their philosophy in revenue sharing with developers for their own tools is much more developer friendly. They are much more values driven here. Apple is in fact the greedy one here. It’s not a coincidence they reaches a 2 trillion market cap here!
There’s several examples of Apple being greedy.
Stop defending Apple like it’s some exception to the rule and that it’s some kind of amazing company that is out there to help developers rich. They don’t care about that. They care about their own valuation.
1. Epic want to have their own store on iOS.
2. Epic want to have their own store on iPadOS.
3. Epic want to have their own store on tvOS.
Thats it.Epic don’t care about the 30% fee level, which for us is the bigger concern as it strips away a large chunk of our margin. They also don’t care about the additional ad spend we feel we have to do to promote our apps in the App Store as they charge for the same thing in their store.
This Epic vs Apple battle will not help us until it transitions to the fee level which, I agree with you, is probably a little high now given the changes in the marketplace over the last decade. But we signed up to the terms knowing full well what the cost was going to be so the argument isn’t a legal one.
The argument is an economic one. Can we take our apps out of the App Store and survive on non-Apple device revenue? You know, earning our living in a market free-for-all like the Android space is and is how Epic wants the Apple space to be. THAT is how developers force Apple’s hand on the 30% by abandoning the platform, but it won’t happen.
My revenue/profit stream mix may not be reflective of yours (or any other developers) and it is definitely not like Epics, but the App Store distribution is close to 65% of my revenue, and 80% of my profits. I literally can not afford not to be in the App Store with its 30/15 fee as I don’t have the time or resource depth to build out myself what I get for being in the App Store. Having more stores may create market forces to bring the headline fee cut down, but there are other costs you get hit with that mean the overall costs for each platform or store distribution channel are far higher than the headline price appears.
I’d rather focus my limited time (being a developer is not my main job) improving my apps rather than building out distribution and payment systems I’m afraid.
But that is just my own opinion based on my own situation and Epics push for an open free-for-all space in the Apple iOS based platform is not one that will help me at all.
-
Developers rail against Apple App Store policy in wake of House antitrust hearing
I don't take issue with that when you take into consideration the terms fo the agreement.Rayz2016 said:However, I do have a problem with this:Cook denied that certain larger developers are favored over others.
If Amazon didn't have to pay a 30% cut in its first year on the app store, then that sounds a lot like favouring a larger developer over a smaller one.
Amazon Prime Video (which is what I gather this deal was about) provided a feed of their entire content library to the Apple TV service as a condition of obtaining a 15% fee rather than 30%. If I recall from the keynote that this service was originally announced no pricing was announced or implied and so the "deal" sits outside of the general 30% App Store terms.
Effectively, Apple was prepared to pay (or rebate) Amazon 50% of the 30% fee in the first year to get the Amazon Prime Video content on their TV service. What developer can claim a volume of content like that as a negotiation point? On a financial point, I'll bet that in Apple's accounts, Amazon's fee was accrued at 30% with the 50% rebate in the associated rebates line, in much the same way as happens across almost every business.
